HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Elvis Cruz-Letter to CommissionersSubmitted into the pub C '
record fo item s)
on _._5 Z 5 I City Clerk
Elvis Cruz 631 NE 57 Street Miami, Florida 33137
(305) 754-1420 ElvisCruz@mac.com
Tuesday, May 23, 2017
Honorable Chairman and Commissioners
City of Miami Commission
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Dear Honorable Chair and Commissioners,
I hope this letter finds you well.
This letter is a response to Ms. Iris Escarra's letter of April 24, 2017 in which she tries for a
second time to challenge the standing of the Morningside Civic Association and myself as
appellants regarding the HEP Board's approval of a Special Certificate of Appropriateness for
the property at 5101-5125 Biscayne Boulevard.
Ms. Escarra alleges that we are appealing the HEP Board's "Historic Preservation Waiver". Not
true. I've never heard of a "Historic Preservation Waiver". The Morningside Civic Association
and I are appealing a Certificate of Appropriateness.
In attempting to oppose our standing, Ms. Escarra writes:
Mr. Cruz asserts that he is a "named party on a [2014] Settlement
Agreement regarding this property," and, as such, his "standing as an individual is
not based on proximity, it is based on [his] being a named party on the various
appeals and court cases that led to the Settlement Agreement, and on being a
named party in the Settlement Agreement." Exhibit A. Mr. Cruz does not cite to
any legal or other support for this statement, as there is none.
Contrary to Ms. Escarra's above statement, there is indeed legal support for this statement, and
here is a citation:
In Upper Keys Citizens Ass'n, Inc. v. Monroe County, 467 So.2d 1018 (Fla. P D.C.A. 1985), an
appellant has standing when they contend that the action of the [ local ] authorities was contrary
to an existing settlement agreement.
"...the plaintiff had standing to challenge the action of the county authorities
which it alleged was contrary to their earlier settlement agreement."
I,OdNtMiSS)pw�
"...under the factual situation wherein they contend that the 1982 action of the
Monroe County authorities is contrary to their settlement agreement of 1980, they
have standing."
"We find that they would also have standing under the second Renard test by the
virtue of the peculiar circumstances relating to the settlement."
Ms. Escarra attempts to cite Renard, alleging that Renard states that "an "aggrieved party" is one
who has a cognizable legal interest which is adversely affected by the decision being
challenged."
That is not quite accurate. Renard actually states, "An aggrieved or adversely affected person
having standing to sue is a person who has a legally recognizable interest which is or will be
affected by the action of the zoning authority in question."
In this case, as named parties to the Settlement Agreement, the Morningside Civic Association
and I have a legally recognizable interest which was adversely affected by the HEP Board's
action. Therefore, we have standing.
Please know I am working on additional standing arguments to present to the Commission.
Sincerely,
Elvis Cruz, both individually and as
President, Morningside Civic Association